Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

This discussion has reminded me that I intended to make a donation to the Guardian, since I read it every day and use an adblocker.

The link for a one-off contribution is here: https://contribute.theguardian.com/

Or for a subscription, here: https://subscribe.theguardian.com/

I tried the weekly paper edition for a while, but although it was posted on-time at the printers (in Britain or Austria), the Danish postal system usually delayed delivery to me by at least a week.




I've mentioned here before that I'm a Guardian Weekly paper edition subscriber, mostly because:

* no tracking of the articles I choose to read, as in online news subscriptions

* cross-section of articles that I wouldn't otherwise seek out (no filter-bubble)

* very little advertising, none of it obtrusive

It's also a great way to support real journalism, and learn about world news, not the parochial junk my local tabloids cover.


There absolutely is a filter bubble, you just aren't the one doing the filtering. Not that I am philosophically opposed to the filtering, but rather the denial of its existence.


Yes, but part of the newspaper experience of old was- that it breaks it. You paid for news, you usually wouldn't read- thus, you would at least skim it- thus such things could be relevant for everyone.


But there is limited space in a physical newspaper. With finite space some choice has to be made as to what goes in and what doesn't. It's the same filtering that occurs with new media, except on a less personal scale and for different reasons.


It's the filtering which conforms to the wishes of the newspaper's editor, rather than the personal tracking profile of the individual reader. Hence why the various newspapers have known political positions - because their editors in the past put them there, and their readership now expect it.


Which is why you aimed to get in the position of reading a couple of news sources of different known biases. That's the old school counter to stuff being filtered


It's not necessarily filtering when it's a aggregated. Hard to achieve uniform coverage though, correct, and not all the topics which have happened may be touched on (even in a one sentence or less)


The filter is which paper you choose to read. Reading The Guardian instead of Wall Street Journal is a filter.


they're still better than most big news organizations, but they're massively scewed toward a certain type of left wing echo chamber at this point. I loved reading the publication for years; the Snowden revelations were the high point.

Now you'll get a massive dosage of anti-Sanders, anti-Corbyn hit pieces and similar along that political vein. You'll get a solid 70% of opinion articles pushing extreme feminism. If that's your cup of tea, all the power to you. But I don't think they're remotely impartial for a second anymore.

Comments sections strategically opened or closed or moderated depending on the subject.

Good on them for pulling out of Facebook I guess, but that definitely doesn't mean they're remotely objective at this point in my experience.


News is not Commentary. There's a wall between them in serious publications. Papers like the Guardian and the Wall St. Journal have very specific axes to grind in the Commentary sections. But they both have excellent News organizations. I'm left-leaning and find the WSJ top notch.


I mostly agree with this. I too lean left but appreciate the journalistic work done at the WSJ.

I think The Guardian has lost much of their balance in the past couple years though. I see too much rhetoric in what should be unbiased news lately and while I appreciate well thought out opinions I don't like them creeping into "News". When it does I feel the ghost of Orwell leaning over my shoulder and whispering "there it is".


Can you share a few Guardian articles that are not opinion pieces or a journalist's personal column but still has "too much rhetoric in what should be unbiased news"?


The article: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/24/julian-assange...

The reason their extreme bias shows: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...

This is a bit of an exception, because it is quite possibly the worst article I've ever seen them put out. But they definitely have a bias, towards the Clinton/Blair faux-left to the point where they not only dislike the right, but also the people like Sanders/Corbyn.


How is that article biased or extreme? It's just a condensed summary of an interview Assange gave to the Italian newspaper la Repubblica. It looks pretty neutral to me.

Edit: Apparently Assange didn't say the things the article claims. If so, it's just shoddy research on the part of the article author, and I'm surprised it hasn't been retracted.


How extreme is your standard for biased reporting, if publishing an article with completely made up claims - and not retracting it - is not what you would consider biased?


> This article was amended on 29 December 2016 to remove a sentence in which it was asserted that Assange “has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime”. A sentence was also amended which paraphrased the interview, suggesting Assange said “there was no need for Wikileaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there”. It has been amended to more directly describe the question Assange was responding to when he spoke of Russia’s “many vibrant publications”.


The bias shows in what they choose not not publish, as much in what they publish. Take Israel/Palestine (just to be sure to start an off-topic flamewar): Palestinian civilians are killed almost daily, nothing in the news. An Israeli casualty (military OR civilian): Instant top news on every mass media outlet.


Yep. I bookmarked The Guardian about 3-4 years ago and really enjoyed a lot of what they put out but about two years ago I began to realize just how tilted they were. I'm not sure if it was them or me that changed most but I suspect it was them. I quit tuning into CNN and MSNBC about 4 years ago and back then I recall The Guardian seemed quite balanced in comparison.

It was during our elections last year that they leaned too far for me to take them seriously as a real journalistic endeavor and I scrapped the bookmark because they were wasting my time.

It wasn't easy though. I really wanted to make a donation and support their stated mission of being truly independent news provider, but I just couldn't because they're not. They have a very clear agenda that's promoted with a left wing tilt but really only supports a different group of corporatists than the right.

I will not subsidize that, and that's really what they're asking from us.


The editor changed from Alan Rusbridger to Katharine Viner in summer 2015:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/20/guardian-appoi...

IMO, around that time the editorial policy changed noticably too.


That makes sense. I was not aware of that so thank you for pointing it out.


When they say independent they mean or outside influence and political parties, they absolutely intend to always follow their British liberal tradition. They don't hide this.


Yeah, I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again but - although I used to be a big fan, and still read the odd piece on The Guardian - one of the things I realised around the time of the Brexit vote is that The Guardian is basically The Daily Mail for Lefties. They have this slick veneer of intellectualism, they're generally more subtle and, yes, they appear to fact check rather more carefully, but the spin and the somewhat shrill tone are nevertheless there. I can't really deal with them any more, but I could say the same of any newspaper these days.


You might consider reading Thomas Frank https://www.theguardian.com/profile/thomas-frank

Who writes how the left ignored the working class and how the working class supported Trump before the election:

March 2016: Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald...

July (post BrExit): The world is taking its revenge against elites. When will America's wake up? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/19/reveng...


I always get very suspicious when I see somebody talking about "extreme feminism". The feminist content I see in the Guardian is of the "we'd really like women to be treated equally to men" kind, which is perfectly ordinary feminism I thought.


How about this recent opinion piece: "Robots are racist and sexist. Just like the people who created them" [0]. Basically if you're one of those "white, straight men" building software you're racist and sexist. I wouldn't call that moderate feminism.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/20/robots...


Why is that extreme? The author is asking that developers take care in their work and account for unintended consequences of a non-moral entity learning from a world with racism & sexism in it. That seems prudent to me.


> machines can work only from the information given to them, usually by the white, straight men who dominate the fields of technology and robotics.

> one Google image search using technology “trained” to recognise faces based on images of Caucasians included African-American people among its search results for gorillas

> Microsoft created a chatbot, Tay, which could “learn” and develop as it engaged with users on social media. Within hours it had pledged allegiance to Hitler

> Robots are racist and sexist. Just like the people who created them

The author is determined to see sexist intent in everything, and bends the truth to match. (E.g. claiming Microsoft software pledge allegiance to Hitler.)

That said, steer clear of the opinion pieces and you can avoid the worst of this junk.


Is it not extreme to claim that all software developers are racist and sexist, and are all "white straight male"?

The points she makes otherwise might indeed be worthy of discussion. However I think some of what she describes is simply misclassified data - black people get misclassified, but so do white people (but of course it doesn't make the news). Unless she can prove that white people are misclassified less frequently than black ones, she has no point.

The Tay incident was not due to bias but to trolls purposely feeding the IA racist information. Despite what she vaguely claim later in the article it wasn't encoded, not even subconsciously, in the bot by the developers.


> Is it not extreme to claim that all software developers are racist and sexist, and are all "white straight male"?

I never saw that claim in the article. She did claim that white, straight men dominate fields of technology and robots, but that doesn't seem controversial to me (though I would happy to see evidence against it).

I'm not sure that either of your points diminish the argument of the article. I didn't get the impression that the author thought that developers are purposefully creating racist robots. To me, she was saying that those who suffer bigotry the least will also be the least likely to account for it in the systems they design because they see the world as less bigoted than it is and has been. Sure, in hindsight, the two examples you mentioned can be explained as poor sources of information. But if we're going to avoid bigoted tech & robots, we'll need to catch those issues beforehand, and I think her point is that more diversity would lead to better foresight on such things.


Never seen the Thomas the Tank Engine is sexist because Percy got covered in pink paint and didn't like it one then?


I agree. The Guardian's definitely gone down hill since Snowden. The news they do decide to report is pretty good, but their opinion pieces very often push socially regressive viewpoints.


What usually happens with their opinion pieces is that most of them are pretty uncontroversial and bland. But the ones that are silly, extreme and/or hypocritical are the ones that make it to the top precisely because they are so.

Take the example of their opinion pieces today.

Article 1: French polls show populist fever is here to stay as globalisation makes voters pick new sides

Article 2: How the opposition parties can still make a contest of this election

Two reasonable articles, which are not amongst the 10 most viewed or clicked on. What is amongst the most viewed opinion pieces then?

Article 1: Allow me to womansplain the problem with gendered language

Article 2: Serena Williams’s pregnant victory reminds us how amazing women’s bodies are. Subititle: Are women the weaker sex? I don't think so.

So the well-reasoned, sane articles are ignored, while the clickbait rubbish is well....clicked on, makes their 'most viewed' and is featured on their front page. A large part of the problem is people's tendencies to click on what you call "socially regressive" viewpoints. It's not like the people agree with them either, most of the comment section involves bashing the author. Some people are just looking for articles to get angry too.


NYT also publishes some pretty crass, clickbaity opinion pieces. I used to like Krugman, but his opinion pieces have gotten increasingly annoying the last few years. It's not that I disagree with what he says, it's just that they're poorly written rants that merely serve to make NYT look more tabloid.


I've seen that too.


As the commenter above me stated, in 2015 Alan Rusbridger left and got replaced with Katharine Viner


There are individual vocal Corbyn and Sanders supporters- Owen Jones of the Guardian for example is possibly the only person in the entirety of the mainstream media to be an ardent Corbyn supporter, and his pro-Corbyn articles frequently hit the front page, but as a whole it's true that most journalists there are Blairites. Sort of very mild-centre left who are socially liberal and oppose austerity, but are still pro-corporate.

That's not great, but for US news they are certainly in the top 3(alongside NYT and WaPo) and the only ones who are free.


Opinion isn't news, as another stated.

Nobody is objective. The Guardian is clear in how it differentiates news and opinion.

High clarity is what helps people most. Couple that with some diversity in sources, and one ends up reasonably well informed.


To me, they've gotten to be the left's response to Breitbart. (Yea I realize I'm going to catch a lot for flack for that. However, columnist/opinion writers for the guardian have been advocating for violence against men and quite a few concerning things)


Breitbart being the advocate for... violence against women? Or quite a few unconcerning things?

Anyway, you make an unsubstantiated (and practically incomprehensible) claim and yes, you're going to catch "flak" for it. HN being the advocate for substantive discussion.


Adding links to representative articles will make your claim much more believable and convincing. As it is my initial reaction is to reject to simply reject your claim as hyperbole.


If you're going to claim they're advocating violence against men you're going to have to cite your examples.


I don't have any links because I stopped reading the source years ago. (For that reason, I did write to the editors, and never got a response back) IIRC Laurie Penny was one that stood out.


Care to recommend any objective news outlets?


https://www.allsides.com

I am quite enjoying it these days. It presents the same news from various news sources and highlights a crowd sourced 'bias' rating for them. So, you can see the same story side-by-side from Fox News, New York Times, WashPo, etc.


No news source is truly objective. Your best option is to read various news sources with different biases, and keeping in mind how they lean.


> No news source is truly objective.

No reader is truly objective either, including you ;-)


That's not entirely true. One can be objective but it does take some self awareness that's not touted much these days.


It's a noble goal but, I think, doomed, because we're all inherently biased towards things that a) were written(1), b) in a language we understand, and c) were delivered to us somehow. What about all the things that happened that weren't written-about? What about all the things that didn't happen, for that matter? The tree over there in Bloomington IN at the corner of Whatever and Whatever, is still there -- find out more, tonight at 11! Or what about the things that were written-about, just not in your own language? Putin has an 83% approval rating back home, but the US media seem to want me to think he's the next Hitler. If I could read Russian better, I could find out a lot more about it.

What about the things that were only described with squeaks amongst porpoises cavorting in the deep? What about the things that happened on the other side of the galaxy? We're predisposed against knowing anything about any of these categories of things.

(1) When I say "written" you can alternatively insert (for example) "talked about" or "filmed" or "addressed in any medium."

Edit to get rid of italics-incontinence.


Well, I doubt any of us is perfect. I do my best to read the news & opinion responsibly: consider what evidence is given and do not give weight to hearsay with no proof, wait for each side to have its say before weighing evidence, and to make no rush to judge anyone.

I know I'm not perfect in those regards, but I try to at least avoid marching to the drumbeat of the two minute hates the politicians use to herd people.


Even if you are truly self-aware, there is no view without a point of view.

(And if you think you are truly self-aware, you have not read Thinking Fast and Slow. You should.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow


The Intercept while not perfect, has a pro-privacy, pro-people stance and does great reporting about serious issues largely ignored by mainstream outlets, like drone strikes.


Reuters or AP is the closest you can get to objective news, as they're both press agencies. (Impartiality and objectivity are key principles of any press agency.)


There is still a bias in which things are considered news worthy and how often they are reported. In principle an objective newspaper can correct for that.


this is the problem the BBC falls foul of. Their reporting is reasonably impartial but they're infamous for excluding reporting on topics that they are not politically aligned with and over-reporting stories that support certain narratives.


   Impartiality and objectivity are key principles of any press agency
Should be key principles of any press agency. If you're old enough to remember TASS in Soviet times (TASS still exists and is still under Russian state control and still portrays the world in a way very favourable to Russia) you'll know what I mean here, or just look at KCNA (the North Korean press agency) for a current example. I'd go so far as to suspect any state-controlled press agency of bias in one way or another.


I've been reading Reuters for the past couple months. It's about as objective as you can get. For me other places are fine to read opinions/commentaries after I read the actual news first and gave it a bit of thought myself.


By "certain type of left wing", do you mean "Third Way"? I thought Sanders and Corbyn were considered very much left-wing?


Corbyn and Sanders are left-of-centre.

They are not even close to the hard left that the media paints them as.


Do not feel guilt tripped into supporting the Guardian through donations!

The Guardian turned their back on investigative journalism and went for columnists (that write columns concerning the agency news). This was decided years ago and last year there were more cuts to the budget, so even more agency news and flim-flam columnist nonsense.

How can the Guardian compete when they are just churning out the same agency news stories as everyone else?

Opinion pieces from a select few columnists worked fine in the days of print but it does not cut it online, people are not that bothered about what their columnists think.

It is too late to turn the sinking ship around, the rest of the Scott Trust money will be thrown down the same hole and it will be game over, with cycles of cutbacks along the way. At the moment the chickens are coming home to roost, a friend in the Farringdon area recently took on two refugees from the Guardian, or maybe they were 'rats leaving the sinking ship'. In former times the Guardian would be the company you would want to work for, not flee because the writing is on the wall.

Had they done it differently and actually done the independent reporting and investigative journalism instead of the agency news with columnists, then things could have been different.

Nowadays the 'please donate' deal sounds a bit like 'give us some money then we will do this investigative journalism stuff, honest'. It is back to front and not as if they really believe honst money can be made from honest journalism - everything is someone else's fault.


The Guardian published a terribly misleading series of stories about WhatsApp that it refuses to correct, despite being called out by most of the security industry. Keep your wallet in your pocket!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nqlE6UQjbUmgoMeJCePVcY5f...


This is true and they ought to have retracted that. However if you apply the principle that you should boycott — at least least refuse to pay for — all publications that have ever published a misleading article on an important topic, then you will rapidly run out of options.

If you want to take a moral position it should be based on an overall assessment of whether the world will be improved by a particular news source ceasing publication. Given the rumored state of the industry it's easy to imagine that in a few years we could be in a "post news" society, where reputable sources have not managed to keep the lights on and it's only the populist publications that are still in business. If the long term choice is between "support a publisher that once made a bad mistake in a technology story" and "The Daily Mail is the only source of news", well to me that's not a moral dilemma.


Serious publications that get things wrong usually, however late, acknowledge they got things wrong. The New York Times, just to pick an example, have publicly commented on things like the mistakes in Judith Miller's pre-Iraq-war reporting or their coverage of the Wen Ho Lee case. The Guardian still has these stories up without as much as a nod to the fact they are strongly contested by experts.


I'm not defending the Guardian but if we boycotted publications for terrible tech reporting we'd probably be trying to get our world news from Ars Technica.


The bad tech reporting is not the problem. Failure to retract or acknowledge mistakes, in a situation where the bad reporting might get people killed, is the problem.


I had only skimmed the link when you replied. I now understand a bit better. I still don't think a boycott is useful in this case but continuing to publicize the issue is a valuable service.


I joined the Guardian some time ago as a member https://membership.theguardian.com/

It's £5 a month, and whilst you do get some extras it is mostly just to support their journalism.

You can pay more as partner and patron if you choose.


5 pounds per month for maybe 5-10 interesting articles is quite steep price compared to offering of Netflix for instance or BBC


I like to think of it as buying a journalist a pint once a month.

Also, when I had Netflix I found it to have a pretty terrible selection after I'd finished the two or three series I liked. Maybe that's just me though.

Finally, at £145 a year, the BBC costs quite a bit more.


"...at £145 a year, the BBC costs quite a bit more"

Because anyone in the world can have free access


The BBC website and radio is free, although ad-supported outside the UK.

Only BBC television costs £145 a year.


I've never seeds ads on BBC website or radio outside of the UK. Do you have more info on this?


It's a thing, at least in the US. Perhaps try a few countries with a VPN.


bbc.com has ads, not bbc.co.uk.


BBC iplayer is free to access throughout the world. That's pretty much all of the TV output.


Theoretically you are obliged to buy a TV license if you watch iPlayer.


Alas, no.

> BBC iPlayer only works in the UK.

> Sorry, it’s due to rights issues.


"BBC iPlayer only works in the UK"

Yes, of course??


Last time I tried it (from Spain) it told me I need to be in the UK.


Sorry, since this is Hacker News, I assumed people would have a basic understanding of how the iplayer knows your location and how trivial a matter it is to circumvent?

Since I spend 9 months of the year in Spain I use a vpn by default and I access iplayer just the same way I would back home.

The not free aspect amounts to a tick box to say you have a licence. To most people on the internet today this does mean it is free.

The point was to explain why the bbc is expensive compared to netflix since it is a lot less convenient to get content for nothing.

Yes, I do have a licence and subscribe to netflix as well as prime. The point was theoretical.


iplayer radio is free around the world. TV is not.


Yes it is.


You pay for BBC's TV programmes; you don't pay for the BBC's online news.


Full disclosure: I pay nothing for the BBC (I don't live in the UK).

However, the BBC news I use does appear to be funded by licence-fee payers, among other sources.

"The World Service is funded by the United Kingdom's television licence fee, limited advertising[6] and the profits of BBC Worldwide Ltd.[7] The service also gets £289 million each year (agreed up to 2020) from the UK government.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service


do they have additional expenses to produce news for foreign readers compared to British paying for this service? they would need to produce those news anyway, so no need to feel guilty about reading something paid by others, anyway these news agencies cooperate and I guess almost anyone in Europe pay for their national TV/radio/news agency which is sharing their news with other countries


Sure, more users and more languages will definitely mean more expenses. The BBC World Service's origins are visible in its original name as the Empire Service. I'm not sure they would still form the world service if the BBC were created today. It is, in my view at least, a great form of soft power for the UK and in some cases one of the only decent reporting options.


everyone i know read English site, so no need to produce anything additional for these users, it cost them just little bit if bandwidth and processing time, but zero human resources


The Guardian is free whether you contribute towards it or not. Unlike Netflix and, in theory, BBC.


Well, if no-one contributes, the Guardian will probably close down in about three years' time.

I can assert this because I used to work there.


There was a lot of fanfare a few years ago when they sold Auto Trader for almost $1 billion, which was justified as a sale that would put so much money into the Scott Trust endowment fund that the paper's finances were now "secure for generations to come" [1]. I guess that was optimistic?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/guardian-media-...


The Guardian Media Group has been haemorrhaging money for years. Their operating loss was £69m last year and is forecast to be around £90m this year. Even with the best part of a billion quid in the bank, they're a long way from financial sustainability.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-tells-staff-to-expect...


The online advertisement market has got much less lucrative per impression since then. It's resulted in most online news sources trying other things to keep the lights on (donations, as with the Graun; paywalls, as at the NY Times; native advertising as at the Huffington Post; lots of other things...)


They also have a top-notch sporting section with live coverage(if you're not American- they mostly cover soccer, tennis and F1), their mobile/ipad app is one of the best out there and their long reads essentially make them a nice weekend reading magazine. Plus they have a few nice podcasts too. They are probably worth the 5 pounds.


I read zero sport news per month, they could be all behind paywall, for long reads you can just check dDigg or Longform, there is anyway so much content I have no chance to read everything I am interested for free why would now I pay for it if there is so much free content I can't ever read?


I tried the weekly paper edition for a while, but although it was posted on-time at the printers (in Britain or Austria), the Danish postal system usually delayed delivery to me by at least a week.

Same here. I had a subscription and they'd usually arrive in Germany a couple of days too late. Luckily, Germany has Der Spiegel, which is also more than worthy supporting.


For me the problem is that the number of sites I'd like to support to some extent. I'd love to donate to The Guardian, but I also frequent The Atlantic, BBC and many other sites. Actually supporting all these sites would take time and effort. I took a look at some chrome extensions which try to make this easier (namely tipsy) but they seem to have very few publishers signed up.


https://blendle.com/ lets you pay a small amount per article, pulls from a variety of sources, no-questions-asked refund if you decide it wasn't worth it.


One day someone will come up with "paypal for articles online" - one button to comfortably and securely click to pay a few cents for an article you want to read.

And of course get enough traction for it to get popular and be used by enough people to be sustainable.

Until then, your problem will be mentioned on HN again and again...


The better way would be for a service that installed an extension that tracks number of visits to distinct URLs on a site you tell the extension to track. At the end of the month, it uses a multiplier with the number of visits to either:

1. Autopay using PayPal or something or the other. 2. Open the payment links with the relevant fields autofilled.


Check out Brave (browser) with built in payments. Of course, this doesn't solve your problem of who's signed up, but Brave has a protocol for that scenario and they reach out to sites and offer them the money before returning it back to you.


For print magazines like The Atlantic, why not subscribe?


Your comment gave me a small idea:

What if adblockers kept (locally stored) stats on sites you visited (where ads were blocked) and how often, and provided a link to donate to them, if you were so inclined. In your case, it might say "You visit guardian 10 times per week. To donate, click here, or to subscribe, click here".


That kind of thing has been speculated on repeatedly. Nobody's really built a system to do it that's ever caught on, but there seem to be an increasing number of attempts as the online advertising model continues to collapse. I think we'll see a mainstream effort at some point, and at the moment with rumours of an ad blocker being built into Chrome I think it may well come from Google. They already had a sort of prototype microtransaction system, it's not at all inconceivable that they could expand that programme. And with their own ad network already running, they might be able to make the transition very easy for people who're running Google ads - they are theoretically in the position that they could say okay, anybody visiting a Google Ads site using Chrome has the choice to see the adverts or pay a small fee, the browser will handle it smoothly for them and the payment will go through the existing AdSense arrangements with the site owner.


Honestly I don't think it would make a lot of difference.

If I can read The Guardian for free, I'm not going to pay for it. Period. And I'm going to block the ads if I can. Note that I'm not saying I would never pay for access to content; I do, e.g. Netflix, and my town's local newspaper website (which has subscription-only access).

Content is either worth paying for or it isn't. News orgnizations are in a tough spot here because there are so many news sources online it's not necessary to pay anyone. Anything newsworthy will be covered by a number of sources. The exceptions are local news, or highly technical/industry-specific news and analysis.


Adblock actually acquired flattr to do exactly that.


i'm a happy subscriber. i initially subscribed in gratitude for their making their entire crossword archive free, but i also appreciate the journalism they do and are happy to support them.

interestingly, their lack of a paywall is a definite part of the value i feel i'm getting for my subscription; if i had to log in to read them i'd be a lot less likely to subscribe in the first place. i wish more sites followed an explicit "pay to help keep us free for everyone" model.


Is there anyway to donate by BTC?


i am in quite opposite situation, i used to like guardian and read it almost daily, until they started to beg for money, which turned me away, rather put it behind paywall than annoy me with begging, i don't find their content so exclusive that i would make donation to them, almost everything i read there i can find elsewhere


I think balancing the need to promote their various income methods and readers ability to tolerate those promotions is probably quite tricky, and a Venn diagram that may never intersect for some people.

As a member I shouldn't see these but I am often not logged in so I still do which is annoying but unavoidable. But to be honest they are not that intrusive (mostly a paragraph at the bottom of an article) and 1 million times better than a paywall.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: